Although I won't deny that Benjamin has a point in emphasizing the value of a piece's aura, I don't agree with his assertion that mechanical reproduction of art is leading to art's demise. To me, art is art no matter what form it's in, whether its the original copy, a reproduction, a photograph of it or even a sketch of the original. The beauty and meaning behind a piece is not lost by its replication, but rather it takes on a new form and perhaps a modified meaning. A poster of the Mona Lisa has different meaning than the actual piece- it is more playful and more accessible. I'm not saying that a poster is better or worse, but merely sends a different message.
As for the aura that he talks about, I definitely agree that a certain closeness to a piece is formed when you are standing right in front of the original. You can see the very brushstrokes that the artist used in creating his piece, and from that, experience the piece rather than simply view it.
Still, I stand firmly in believing that the definition of art is not as narrow as Benjamin's essay makes it seem. Experiencing art does not have to be limited to standing in front of the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment